Obama is America's latest warrior president. He exceeds the worst of his predecessors. He accomplished the impossible. He governs to the right of George Bush. Yet he retains enough support so far for reelection.

In November, perhaps the economy will undo him. Perhaps he'll avoid it by heightening fear for more war. He's more belligerent than all his predecessors.

Public apathy lets him get away with it. People worry more about pocket book issues. Manipulated fear diverts them to security. It works most every time.

Peter Bergin's an establishment figure. He directs national security studies for the New America Foundation. He's also a right-wing print and television contributor, as well as a member of the National Security Preparedness Group. It replaced the 9/11 Commission to perpetuate its whitewash.

On April 28, his New York Times op-ed headlined "Warrior in Chief," saying:

After getting the Nobel Peace Peace prize months into his tenure, he "turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades."

He's worse than that, of course. He exceeds all his predecessors by far. No one's been more belligerent. No one waged more wars simultaneously and threatens more. No one endangers humanity like he does.

Candidate Obama promised peace. President Obama doubled down George Bush and then some. Discussing Afghanistan on October 27, 2007, he said:

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this (and the Iraq) war(s). You can take that to the bank."

Months earlier he said:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (Afghan) President Musharraf won't act, we will. I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America."

Perhaps no remembers either statement. Perhaps too few know America's only enemies are ones it invents. Terrorism is a catch-all term used to incite fear and justify conflict. When it wears thin, something else will replace it.

Bergin tried having it both ways. His title implies criticism. His content combines praise and muted disapproval. He avoided rule of law principles, truth and full disclosure.

His article ignores Obama's threat to world peace, his Nobel award hypocrisy, and how he and Bush alienated more countries than any previous US leader.

Liberals helped elect him, said Bergin "in part because of his opposition to the Iraq (and Afghan) war(s)." They "probably don't celebrate (his) military accomplishments."

Bergin calls them "sizable," but couldn't name any. He tried, of course, but failed. He "decimated Al Qaeda's leadership," he claimed. In fact, popular resistance across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia looks stronger than ever. The more deaths at America's hands, the more enemies it makes.

"He overthrew the Libyan dictator." In fact, Africa's most developed country was ravaged, not liberated. Libya's a charnel house, a raging cauldron. No central authority exists. Battles rage for control. Libyans are terrorized, traumatized, and impoverished. Some accomplishment!

"He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia, and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan."

Is Bergin pleased or critical? It's hard to say. He admitted that Obama "became the first president to authorize the assassination of a (US) citizen." He falsely called Anwar al-Awlaki a threat. He also claimed Obama killed Osama.

He ignored the staged event. Bin Ladin wasn't killed or targeted. Seriously ill, he died naturally in December 2001. On December 26, 2001, Fox News reported it, saying:

He "died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended (his) funeral."

Other media also reported his death. In October 2007, appearing on BBC with David Frost, former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said bin Laden died years ago. In December that year, she was assassinated in Rawalpindi. Perhaps her admission played a part.

There's been a "dramatic cognitive disconnect between (his) record and the public perception of his leadership." Despite his belligerence, conservatives and others think he's a "peacenik."

Political posturing, of course, explains it. Supporter views are another matter. Clear facts are in plain sight. Many don't accept them. Obama's rhetoric belies his policies.

During Bush's tenure, drone attacks struck Pakistan "every 43 days." In Obama's first two years alone, it was "every four days."

Perhaps it's now multiple times daily in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, other targeted countries, and more to come. Obama the peace candidate is "more Teddy Roosevelt than Jimmy Carter."

In 1906, TR won a Nobel Peace Prize, but didn't wage war on humanity. Carter was the 2002 recipient. Obama elevated Nobel hypocrisy to new heights. Bergin noted how fast he opts for military intervention.

Knowledgeable supporters shouldn't be surprised. Politicians always say one thing and do another, especially on issues matter most like waging war.

In office, Bush expanded CIA funding, staff, and operations. Obama outdid him and then some for covert missions, drone wars, and other initiatives. Stopping short of calling him "trigger-happy," Bergin said he's "completely shaken the 'Vietnam syndrome...."

Perhaps he forgot GHW Bush saying on March 2, 1991, after the Gulf War:

"By God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all."

He was right. From January then to now, America's been at war with Iraq, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere from North Africa to Central Asia. Obama's its latest exponent. Trigger-happy fits him well.

Waging multiple wars, he can't wait to start another. In a second term, who knows what he'll do.

Partnered with Israel should give supporters pause. Both nations are modern day Spartas. Militarism and war is their way of life, overtly and covertly. Both are also nuclear armed and dangerous.

Under its current leadership, Israel is especially threatening. On April 28, Haaretz headlined "Israel's former Shin Bet chief: I have no confidence in Netanyahu, Barak," saying:

Yuval Diskin harshly criticized both leaders. They're not worthy to lead Israel, he said, explaining:

"My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us in an event on the scale of war with Iran or a regional war."

"I don't believe in either the prime minister or the defense minister. I don't believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings."

Both are "messianics," he said. One's from "Akirov or the Assuta project." The other's from "Gaza Street or Caesarea." He referred to where they live. They ought to be cordoned off and kept there.

"Believe me, I have observed them from up close.... They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off. These are not people who I would want to have holding the wheel in such an event."

"They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won't have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race."

In March, former Mossad head Meir Dagan said attacking Iran would be "devastating" for Israel. Doing so would ignite regional war. You know how things start, but not end. Attacking Iran will put Israel "in a very serious situation for quite a time."

Diskin added that over the past 10 or 15 years, Israel got "more racist....toward Arabs and foreigners, and we are also....a more belligerent society."

He also worries about extremist Jews. He fears another political assassination like Yitzhak Rabin, and wonders what could come next.

Commenting at the time, Haaretz contributor Amos Harel headlined "Shin Bet chief's vote of no confidence is another blow to Netanyahu and Barak," saying:

His rebuke and Diskin's elevated "the confrontation over the Iranian question to another level....Dagan seems to be on a divine mission to stop the bombing."

Diskin feels the same way. So do other cooler heads, but they're outnumbered in high places.

Netanyahu, Barak, and others around them go to great lengths to cite nonexistent threats, Israel's determination to remove them, and efforts to enlist America's support. In an election year. Perhaps 2013, not now.

Political Washington wants regime change. Whether by war isn't known. Even America has cooler heads but not enough.

"Nothing has been determined in the Iranian story, and the spring is about to boil over into another summer of tension," said Harel.

If Obama heads for Israel soon, it'll show Washington's going all out to avoid war this year. Wait 'till next year, he may say. Belligerent partners may delay another fight, but seldom decline them.

For now, Syria is top priority. Obama and Netanyahu want Assad replaced with a puppet regime subservient to Washington and Israel. Western generated violence rages for it. Intervention may follow.

Harel left that issue unaddressed or the legitimacy of waging wars against non-belligerent states. What's more important than that.

Business as usual continues. "In 1948, new immigrants were brought straight from the ships into abandoned Palestinian homes with pots of food still simmering in the kitchen, and no one asked too many questions."

"In 2012, the Israeli government is trying to whitewash the theft of Palestinian lands, all the while scorning the law."

Earlier crimes repeat now. Those in power "us(e) the same corrupt means" as before. War crimes then become today's. Justifications always are fraudulent. At issue are land and power grabs.

Continuing them sends the world a message. "We will never stop this crushing, ultranationalist melody - then as now, in 1948 and in 2012."

Levy also came down hard on Zionist ideology headlining "After 115 years, it's time for Zionism to retire," saying:

It should have happened long ago. Something more legitimate is needed. In its 64th year as a state, "no one even knows what" role Zionism has or "how it is defined."

Consign it to the history books and be done with it. It's no longer relevant. It's done enough damage. Reinvigorating or reinventing a bad idea assures something worse as a result.

"In Israel 2012, a pursuer of justice and human rights is by definition not Zionist." Even discussing morality and rule of law principles "is blatantly 'not Zionist.' "

"Anyone who blindly supports all of Israel's misdeeds (is) Zionist. Critics are called anti-Semites, even if they are Jewish."

"Zionism is a negative epithet and....mark of shame." It's time has passed. It never should have been in the first place.

Imagine the bloodshed avoided. Imagine how many lives will be spared if peace, reconciliation, and justice replace Zionist instigated conflict.

It's about dominance, not Jewishness. Everyone for right over wrong should want it sent to history's dustbin and rejected.

It might even slow Washington's war machine. Stopping it takes heavier lifting. What better time to start than now.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.